1 QUENTIN JERRY STOBER 2 3 Having first been duly sworn, testified as follows: 4 5 CROSS EXAMINATION 6 7 BY MR. SAMS: 8 Q Dr. Stober, would you state your full name 9 please. 10 A I'm Quentin J. Stober. 11 Q And by whom are you employed? 12 A USEPA. 13 Q In what office? 14 A The Environmental Services Division, Ecological 15 Support Branch. 16 Q Is that located in Athens, Georgia? 17 A Athens, Georgia. 18 Q My name is Gary Sams. I'm a member of the firm 19 that represents the Florida Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative, 20 Wedgworth Farms and Roth Farms in the proceeding in which 21 we're taking your deposition. If I ask you any questions that 22 need clarification before you can answer them, I'd appreciate 23 it if you would do that so that the record we make today is 24 clear. Dr. Stober, let me show you what I will ask the 25 reporter to mark as Exhibit 1. 3 1 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 2 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 1 for identification.) 3 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 4 Q Is that document a copy of your current r sum ? 5 A Yes, it is. 6 Q Can you recall the date as of which this r sum 7 was prepared? 8 A I would say it's approximately nine months old. 9 Q Describe for me in general terms, if you would, 10 your responsibilities with EPA. 11 A I'm the regional fisheries expert, primarily 12 focused on contaminants in fish, and as of the last three 13 years have been the point person for mercury problems in the 14 region as well as the project leader for the Everglades 15 mercury study. 16 Q In a general sense, could you describe the 17 problems of mercury in the region. Do they involve the 18 entirety of Region IV? 19 A Well, there -- there is some concern within the 20 region that as we get more and more fish sampling from state 21 to state in the region, that it's not localized to the state 22 of Florida. It is being discovered in South Carolina, North 23 Carolina, probably -- well, it's also been discovered in the 24 state of Arkansas and north Louisiana, so we're concerned that 25 as the rest of the states fill in with data, that they'll find 4 1 similar problems with mercury. 2 Q Is it possible to generalize on the types of 3 areas within the states that you named that there appears to 4 be a mercury problem? 5 A No. I don't think it's possible to generalize 6 at this point in time. 7 Q Does most of the work that's developed data 8 relate to water bodies? 9 A Most of the data so far relates to streams in 10 the southeast. 11 Q Based on the data that are available so far, 12 does it appear that Florida has a greater mercury problem than 13 the other states which you mentioned? 14 A I think that if you look at the data available 15 -- Florida has more available data. They've studied the 16 potential problem more thoroughly than other states, so I 17 think if you compared it with the other seven states in the 18 region, it may look like they have a problem of greater 19 magnitude, but I'm not convinced that that would be the case 20 if we had similar data from all other states. 21 Q Do the data showing mercury in fish tissue in 22 Florida that you have seen show higher levels than similar 23 data for the other states? 24 A No, I don't think they do. I haven't seen the 25 data from South Carolina, but the telephone conversations 5 1 indicate that they're in the same order of magnitude as the 2 Everglades. 3 Q Can you make similar comparisons for North 4 Carolina, Arkansas and northern Louisiana? 5 A Roughly. 6 Q What are those comparisons? 7 A Well, they're -- they're above one part per 8 million in large-mouthed bass and some of them are -- are much 9 higher than that like two or three on occasion; and bowfin are 10 another species that are -- are routinely high. 11 Q Does that knowledge cause you as a scientist 12 with regulatory responsibilities to arrive at any preliminary 13 conclusions or -- well, I'll stop there, preliminary 14 conclusions? 15 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I'm going to object to the 16 form. 17 A No. I don't think we have any conclusions at 18 this point; we've got some concerns. 19 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 20 Q What are your concerns? 21 A That -- that we're dealing with a global 22 contaminant that may be exacerbated by local hot spots. 23 Q How do you define, in general terms, the 24 concept of the local hot spot? 25 A Well, where you may have a high concentration 6 1 of people or industry or both that could accelerate the loss 2 of mercury into the atmosphere. 3 Q Have you seen other data from the other states 4 which you mentioned suggesting that mercury problems there 5 might be similar to those in the Florida Everglades? 6 A In a -- yes, in a general nature they're 7 similar. 8 Q What are those data that -- besides mercury 9 levels in fish tissues? 10 A Oh, that's all that it's limited to is strictly 11 fish tissue concentration. 12 Q Is EPA to your knowledge planning to do any 13 special studies of this problem in the southeast? 14 A Well, yes, there are some early indications 15 that they'll be some studies done, but they're very early in 16 the stages of planning. 17 Q At this stage, what kinds of studies are in the 18 early planning stages? 19 A Well, mainly of getting state -- existing state 20 data together in a comprehensive database. 21 Q Is that an effort for which you have overall 22 responsibility? 23 A Well, it -- only in more or less promoting the 24 idea, but there is no real responsibility yet because the 25 project is still in the very formative stages. 7 1 Q For how many years have you been working in the 2 area of contaminants in fish for EPA? 3 A Oh, approximately ten years. 4 Q Has that period included mercury throughout the 5 ten years as one of the contaminants? 6 A Off and on, yes, as one of them. 7 Q Prior to that ten-year period, what were your 8 responsibilities at EPA? 9 A Well, I didn't work for EPA for approximately 10 18 years, in between an initial three-year period and then the 11 last seven years or so. I was a university professor in 12 between. 13 Q So your ten-year answer really covered your 14 entire period with EPA? 15 A Well, or an agency that eventually evolved into 16 EPA. 17 Q What were the areas in which you taught while a 18 university professor? 19 A Oh, I taught water quality courses, but 20 primarily my -- my focus was on research, environmental 21 research dealing with various fisheries problems. 22 Q Did it include the study of contaminants 23 substantially throughout that -- 24 A Most of the time not. 25 Q What was the thrust of -- 8 1 A Nuclear power plant sighting, related studies 2 -- environmental studies related to power plant sighting, 3 hydropower problems like pump storage, entrainment of fish, 4 screening problems, sighting of power-generation facilities. 5 There was another sort of body of work that I carried on on 6 marine toxicology. 7 Q When you use that term, are you referring to 8 toxicology to salt water species? 9 A Right. 10 Q At the present time -- let's give that a time 11 frame, say during the last 12 months, approximately what 12 percentage of your time, Dr. Stober, is spent on the subject 13 of mercury problems in south Florida? 14 A Oh, I guess about 95 percent. 15 Q Is that primarily related to the R-EMAP study 16 that is in the early stages? 17 A Yes. 18 Q Do you have primary responsibility for that 19 study on EPA's behalf? 20 A Yes, I do. 21 Q How long have you had that responsibility? 22 A Well, officially, probably a month. 23 Q Unofficially, if that's the proper way to ask 24 you -- 25 A About three years. 9 1 Q Would the same 95-percent estimate that you 2 gave me a moment ago for the last 12 months apply to that 3 three-year period? 4 A No. It probably would be about half time in 5 '92 and ten percent of my time in '91. 6 Q In general terms, Dr. Stober, what are your 7 responsibilities for the R-EMAP study? 8 A Well, primarily at this point in time it's been 9 planning the study program. 10 Q Is that study program now under way? 11 A Yes. It was initiated last September with the 12 first cycle of canal samples. 13 Q How long do you expect that study program to 14 continue? 15 A Well, the R-EMAP proposal is written for a 16 two-year period, so it would go through FY '95. 17 Q Do you anticipate that, in fact, it will 18 continue longer than the two years? 19 A I would anticipate it would, yes. 20 Q Why do you have that anticipation? 21 A The complexity of the problem. 22 Q If the data that you've seen to date suggest 23 that the problem may exist at a similar order of magnitude in 24 other states of the southeast, why is there particular focus 25 on the south Florida area for the study of mercury contamination? 10 1 A Well, I think it's because it was discovered 2 first. 3 Q Any other reasons? 4 A Well, it's got high public concern. 5 Q Any others? 6 A Those are mainly it. 7 Q Are there any features of the Florida 8 Everglades, or the south Florida area more broadly, that would 9 make that an area of special focus from a scientific 10 standpoint? 11 A Well, I think it's -- from a scientific point 12 of view it's got a lot of attributes that make it a 13 particularly interesting place to study the problem. It's got 14 a large ag. area, it's got a lot of people associated with 15 south Florida in an urban area, it's a highly-prized 16 ecosystem, there's a lot of water involved in the system, so 17 from a number -- and atmospherically it's an interesting -- it 18 has some interesting attributes that make scientific study 19 quite challenging and a perfect place to try to model. 20 Q Let's follow up, if we may, on that last 21 comment first. What are its atmospheric attributes that make 22 it challenging and a particularly interesting place to model? 23 A Well, I'm not an atmospheric scientist, but 24 there are sources in the urban area that are discharging to 25 the atmosphere, and they -- the question is how much is 11 1 discharged and stays into the global -- goes into the global 2 background, how much is falling on the Everglades as part of 3 the wet\dry deposition, and that's basically what the FAM 4 study is trying to determine. So I think it has a 5 predominantly east-to-west flow from the urban area across the 6 Glades and high rainfall, a wet and a generally dry season, so 7 I think it could have utility in allowing us to eventually 8 develop atmospheric models that could be particularly useful 9 for other parts of the world. 10 Q What is it about the high rainfall level that 11 makes it interesting? 12 A Well, you can -- it presupposes that with high 13 rainfall you can wash more material out of the air. 14 Q What is it about the existence of wet and dry 15 seasons that make it particularly interesting? 16 A Well, not anything that's unique but the fact 17 that there are wet and dry seasons in the system and that may 18 help to unravel the cycling problems that are part of what 19 we're trying to drive at in the mercury problem. 20 Q What are the cycling problems that are being 21 focused on? 22 A Well, the forms of mercury, where it exists, 23 its distribution, processes by which it goes from one form to 24 another make it a very difficult element to study. 25 Q I believe just before that area, which I guess 12 1 I'll call atmospheric interest, you mentioned that there's a 2 lot of water involved. Could you indicate why that makes it 3 an interesting area to study for mercury contamination? 4 A Well, you may see the cycling occur at a more 5 rapid rate than if you compared that to an arid area. 6 Q Anything else? 7 A No, I'll leave it at that for now. 8 Q Are you aware that it's an area that has what 9 is sometimes called a managed hydroperiod? 10 A Yes. 11 Q What does that concept mean to you? 12 A Well, it means that you're trying to move water 13 from an area where you might want it dry or might want it wet 14 under artificial conditions depending on what the need is. 15 Q Does that fact provide a matter of interest for 16 the study of mercury contamination in the area? 17 A Yes, it does. That's one of the prime issues 18 in the Everglades ecosystem, a very difficult one to study 19 directly. 20 Q Why is that a difficult issue to study 21 directly, Dr. Stober? 22 A Well, because you -- you have to have some 23 place where you can manipulate the water under experimental 24 conditions and on the scale. It's almost impossible to do 25 that without just monitoring over time to see what in fact was 13 1 done. 2 Q Just so I can understand the point you were 3 making, were you saying that in essence because the 4 hydroperiod is managed to meet certain needs, it's therefore 5 difficult to manipulate it in a experimental sense? 6 A That's -- that's what I'm saying. 7 Q Are there any opportunities that you or others 8 have identified for manipulating the hydroperiod in the 9 Everglades in an experimental sense? 10 A The ENR might offer some opportunities, but -- 11 Q Is that the Everglades Nutrient Removal 12 Project? 13 A Nutrient Removal Project, yeah. But I think 14 that is still subject to question whether or not the water 15 can, in fact, be controlled. 16 Q What question is that subject to? 17 A Well, how it was constructed. 18 Q Could you explain to me what its construction 19 has to do with whether the art -- the water level in it can be 20 artificially controlled? 21 A Well, whether the dikes are permeable or 22 nonpermeable and the latter would, of course, be a 23 prerequisite for controlling the manipulations like you'd like 24 to have them. 25 Q Have any other opportunities to experiment with 14 1 the manipulation of the hydroperiod been identified? 2 A None that I know of. 3 Q In the absence of such opportunities, did I 4 understand your response to indicate that it would then be 5 necessary to observe field data under differing conditions and 6 attempt to correlate those data statistically, is that a -- 7 A That's our present approach with the R-EMAP. 8 Q You indicated that another factor that made the 9 south Florida area of particular interest for study of mercury 10 contamination is that it's a highly-prized ecosystem. To what 11 were you referring there, Dr. Stober? 12 A Well, it's an internationally-known wetland, 13 the Everglades ecosystem and Everglades National Park, and 14 both within the United States and outside the United States 15 almost anybody that knows anything about famous wetlands and 16 parks has heard of the Everglades; so from that standpoint 17 it's a well-known area. And people, whether they've been 18 there or not, have either seen pictures or heard about it. 19 Q Do the ecological values for which it's highly 20 prized relate directly in your mind to the need to study the 21 causes and effects of mercury contamination? 22 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Object to form. 23 A Can you restate it? 24 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 25 Q What are the elements of the Everglades 15 1 ecosystem that are -- particularly make it interesting for the 2 study of mercury contamination? 3 A Well, I guess I'd say the elements are a large 4 expanse of wetland that's more or less undeveloped, formerly 5 abundant populations of wildlife, unspoiled habitat more or 6 less. Those are the kinds of things that if you wanted a 7 semi-wilderness experience, you could expect to still get a 8 taste of that there. 9 Q You mentioned another fact area that is making 10 it an interesting area for study had to do with urban area. I 11 take that to mean the urban area nearby? 12 A Well, that's -- I didn't mean that that was a 13 plus, but things being as they are, that's obviously -- a 14 concentration of five and a half million people or thereabout, 15 that we need to ask questions about how are they impacting the 16 system, and that's the -- the juxtaposition of the Everglades 17 with the high concentration of people I think is the important 18 point. 19 Q I think you also mentioned a large ag. area. 20 By that were you referring primarily to the Everglades 21 agricultural area? 22 A Yes. 23 Q Why is that a matter making it an area 24 interesting for study? 25 A Well, it's farmed and farmed fairly 16 1 intensively; and with farming operations, there are certain 2 things that can happen to water quality or habitat or movement 3 of water. 4 Q Let me show you a document that I will ask the 5 reporter to mark as Exhibit Number 2 and ask if you recognize 6 that document? 7 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 8 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 2 for identification.) 9 A Yes. 10 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 11 Q Dr. Stober, were you a member of the Mercury 12 Technical Committee that issued this interim report? 13 A Yes, I was. 14 Q How did you come to be involved in what appears 15 to be a state report? 16 A Well, there was -- there's a variety of people 17 here that are both within and outside of various agencies, 18 universities, electric power research institute, there's a -- 19 basically, this group of people were brought together under 20 the governor's Mercury Task Force to do what they could to 21 develop a state of what needed to be done or a plan -- a 22 general plan of what needed to be done to address the mercury 23 issue in the state of Florida. I was the Region IV 24 representative. 25 Q As a scientist, are you concerned about the 17 1 levels of mercury existing in Florida from a public health 2 standpoint? 3 A Well, on my job I normally deal with ecological 4 issues, but being the region's fisheries expert, you can't 5 avoid the public health concern. So I deal with that mainly 6 straight across the board from the knowledge of what 7 contaminant levels are either acceptable to EPA or FDA, if the 8 case may be appropriate. 9 Q What levels of mercury contamination in fish 10 tissue are acceptable or unacceptable to the EPA? 11 A Well, up until a few months ago, we deferred to 12 FDA action level of one part per million in fish. About -- I 13 guess it was September 1993, we issued a guidance document for 14 assistance to the states on sampling and analysis of fish 15 tissue, and in that guidance document we have a screening 16 level value of .65 parts per million. 17 Q What is a screening level? 18 A Well, that's a level where the agency would 19 become concerned that it's exceeding public health -- well, 20 it's entering into -- if you exceed that level and the 21 consumption rate that it's based on, then we would be 22 concerned that human health is in -- at higher risk. 23 Q Are you familiar with the Florida levels of 24 mercury concentration in fish tissue that are treated as 25 thresholds of regulatory concern? 18 1 A Are you referring to the advisory levels that 2 Florida uses? 3 Q Is there a .5 and also 1.5 in -- 4 A Yes. 5 Q -- Florida that you're familiar with? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Is the .5 a screening level? 8 A No, that is a Florida structured advisory. 9 What it tells you, that below .5 there is no concern for 10 consumption irregardless of whether you're male or female, 11 young or old. What it also tells you, that if you're a 12 pregnant female or a young child and you're eating fish 13 between .5 and one and a half that you only have one meal a 14 month that you can consume fish at those levels. And then if 15 you're consuming fish above one and a half parts per million, 16 no person whether they're young, old, male or female should 17 consume those fish, and that's a typical risk-based state 18 advisory. 19 Q Are you aware that levels of mercury in fish 20 tissue greater than 1.5 have been found at points in the 21 Florida Everglades? 22 A Yes. 23 Q How widespread do you understand that problem 24 to be within the Everglades? 25 A Well, that's part of the objective of the 19 1 R-EMAP study. Currently, the only database is the Florida 2 large-mouthed bass state database and that's focused on 3 canals. It appears that the highest concentrations found in 4 bass as well as bowfin and a few other species would focus on 5 the east-central part of Water Conservation Area Three and 6 extending into Everglades National Park. 7 Q Are those areas, the east-central portion of 8 Water Conservation Area Three-A -- 9 A Right. 10 Q -- and Everglades National Park the ones in 11 which the most elevated -- 12 A Highest concentrations occur. 13 Q Were you in general accord with the statements 14 made in this Mercury Technical Committee Interim Report dated 15 June 28, 1991? 16 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Are you referring to the report 17 as a whole or any particular part of it? 18 MR. SAMS: The report as a whole. 19 A What was the question, whether I'm in general 20 accord with it? 21 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 22 Q Yes. 23 A Yeah. I think I can say I'm in general accord 24 with the report given the fact that it was developed by a 25 committee in an intensive three-day workshop. 20 1 Q If I can refer you to page ix, small Roman 2 numeral nine, at the top. 3 A (Witness complies with request of Counsel.) 4 Q In particular, I refer you under site- 5 independent research to the second paragraph there. Do you 6 have any recollection of why it was chosen by this committee 7 to recommend the level of focus that's shown there on rapid 8 oxidation of peat deposits, flooding sugar cane fields, 9 burning vegetation, flooding new highly biodegradable 10 vegetation, etcetera? 11 A Repeat the first part of your question. 12 Q Why, if you recall, did the committee recommend 13 those particular areas of focus? 14 A Well, I -- as I recall, the committee was 15 trying to think through this process of how to study the 16 mercury cycling problem, and this is simply a list of things 17 that might be affecting mercury cycling, and it's neither all 18 inclusive or -- or even doable (phonetic) in some cases, so I 19 think it represents the thinking of the committee at the time 20 and that's all I'd say about it. 21 Q Was there focus particularly by the committee 22 on the effects of the Everglades agricultural area on the 23 mercury contamination problem? 24 A No. I think it was an even-handed approach. 25 You may not surmise this from this list, but I think the 21 1 governor's Task Force really had a state-wide focus and it 2 wasn't to focus on agriculture in particular. 3 Q Is it a fair summary of the document that the 4 primary priority identified was the Everglades Wetlands 5 System? 6 A Yes, it was. 7 Q And is it a fair reading of the document that 8 those enumerated items to which I drew your attention a moment 9 ago were the particular focus of site-specific research 10 recommendations? 11 A Well, they were the best guess at the time. 12 Q If you were to revisit this same subject at the 13 present time knowing what you know now, would you have the 14 same recommendation -- 15 MR. LIPSHULTZ: With regards -- I'm sorry, I 16 didn't mean to interfere. 17 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 18 Q -- as a member of the committee? 19 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Are you referring specifically 20 to site-independent research or the general conclusions 21 of the report? 22 MR. SAMS: Both. I can split them apart, but 23 the focus is really on two things, the priority given 24 the Everglades and then the site-specific focus. 25 A Okay, what was the first part of your question? 22 1 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 2 Q Based on what you know now having the benefit 3 of a little over two years further information, would you as a 4 member of the committee still recommend -- and I'll break the 5 question up -- a priority focus on the Everglades as was done 6 in this document? 7 A Yes. I think it is fair to say that that would 8 still be a priority. 9 Q Would it be the prime priority as you would see 10 it in Florida? 11 A Well, given the fact that the highest levels of 12 mercury in fish occur in the Everglades ecosystem, that would 13 be my prime consideration. 14 Q Okay. Then essentially I'm asking you the same 15 question with respect to the recommended site research that is 16 in the paragraph on page small Roman numeral nine that I've 17 previously referred you to. 18 A Well, I think we -- in the intervening time 19 we've gotten much more sophisticated in our approach, and even 20 though these may suggest interesting things that need to be 21 studied, I think the R-EMAP approach that we're taking now 22 that looks at the entire Everglades ecosystem is -- is the 23 best approach to at least initiate the Everglades study with 24 these particular items coming later in terms of process 25 studies or at least later things to look at. 23 1 Q Why is it better in your judgment to look at 2 the entire Everglades ecosystem first before getting to these 3 individual processes? 4 A Well, it's truly -- well, in fact, our 5 preliminary analysis of our first cycle of canal data 6 indicates that if you study any subsection of the Everglades 7 ecosystem, you could completely misconstrue what's going on in 8 terms of mercury cycling, changes in water quality, and how 9 they interact with each other. And that's why it's important 10 to scope it the way we have so that you can see the entire 11 system and how it changes from one end to the other. And 12 that's opposed to process studies which necessarily have to be 13 on a smaller scale, but if you didn't start with the big 14 picture, you wouldn't know where -- where to focus your 15 process studies, so I think that's -- that's the benefit that 16 you see or that we see in our R-EMAP study plan. 17 Q Is it fair to paraphrase that explanation as 18 follows: We really need to understand scientifically how the 19 Everglades cycles mercury before we can focus on specific 20 processes that may or may not affect mercury contamination in 21 particular ways? 22 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I'm going to object to the form. 23 A Can you restate it? 24 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 25 Q Really what I'm asking you is whether you're 24 1 saying that before focusing on particular processes as 2 reflected on the page of the document that we've referred to, 3 it's necessary to understand how the ecosystem works? 4 A Well, not necessarily all the ins and outs of 5 how it works, but, for example, the extent and magnitude of 6 the two essential species of mercury, total mercury and 7 methylmercury, in the system. And then based on that kind of 8 data that covers a large geographic area, then focus your 9 process studies. And of course, an essential part is where to 10 do the process studies, and that's a real problem because you 11 just can't do them everywhere, you can't control water the way 12 you want to control it everywhere. So it is a problematic 13 issue of where to do the process studies so that the way we 14 are initiating the R-EMAP is doing what is doable and in the 15 same instance determining the extent and magnitude. 16 Q Are you aware that Dr. Ron Jones has also made 17 some efforts at measuring ethyl mercury -- 18 A Yes. 19 Q -- in the Everglades? You mentioned, I think, 20 total and methylmercury as the two -- 21 A Uh-huh (affirmative). 22 Q -- primary forms or some such -- 23 A Particularly because that's what our study plan 24 calls for. Ron has just recently come on this discovery, and 25 we're obviously going to explore that farther. 25 1 Q On Arabic numeral page 17, there's mention 2 under rationale of the mercury contamination problems found in 3 hydro-electric reservoirs. Do you agree that factors that 4 might cause mercury contamination in such reservoirs are also 5 present and may have similar effect in the Florida Everglades? 6 A I would only say there's a loose relationship. 7 Some of the same processes may occur, but a new hydro- 8 reservoir is a much different situation than we see in the 9 Everglades. 10 Q If reservoirs are created in the Everglades, 11 take as an example the Stormwater Treatment Areas that are 12 proposed in the swim plan of the state, is it possible that 13 those reservoirs could have similar mercury contamination 14 effects? 15 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Objection, calls for 16 speculation. 17 A Can you rephrase it? 18 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 19 Q Are you familiar with the Stormwater Treatment 20 Areas proposal under the swim plan for the Everglades? 21 A I've heard of it, but I haven't spent much time 22 thinking about it. 23 Q Are you aware of how they are to be 24 constructed? 25 A Not in any detail. 26 1 Q Do you whether they're to hold water in a 2 manner similar to any created pond or reservoir? 3 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Object to form. 4 A Well, really it's hard to answer that kind of a 5 question because there's water all over the whole system to 6 start with, so I don't know what you're referring to. 7 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 8 Q Do you know whether they will pond water, that 9 is, the Stormwater Treatment Areas? 10 A Well, I -- I would guess they would, but the 11 details I'm not familiar with. 12 Q Are you aware that our clients -- my clients 13 have raised the concern of whether those water bodies may, in 14 fact, be subject to the reservoir effect and cause mercury 15 contamination? 16 A I've heard that. 17 Q Have you given any concern to that -- or any 18 consideration to that possibility? 19 A No, I really haven't. I've been focused on the 20 R-EMAP approach to the entire Everglades and I haven't focused 21 on Stormwater Treatment Areas at all. 22 Q What are the factors that give rise to mercury 23 contamination problems in reservoirs? 24 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Object to form. 25 A Can you be more specific? 27 1 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 2 Q Do you know what the factors are that give rise 3 to mercury contamination problems in newly-created reservoirs? 4 A Well, the main factor is the inundation of 5 terrestrial vegetation. 6 Q Are there other particular factors that need to 7 be present in order for that effect to occur? 8 A Oh, the existence of low pH may promote 9 methylation, but basically it's the presence of high organic 10 matter dissolved in other ways. 11 Q If I could, Dr. Stober, draw your attention to 12 the first complete paragraph on page 18. Does the EMAP work 13 being undertaken now by EPA involve comparisons such as those 14 which are referred to in this paragraph? 15 A Not directly at the present time, but once the 16 data is collected, there's some possible comparisons that 17 might be made. 18 Q I notice on page 19, in the first complete 19 paragraph of that page, it says this study should be carried 20 out for a minimum of six years and then it goes on, I guess, 21 to describe three two-year periods. Is that recommendation 22 similar to the EMAP study? 23 A We will accomplish -- if the R-EMAP study is 24 conducted for that length of time, it would -- it would 25 establish a statistically-sound monitoring database over those 28 1 periods of years, but this refers to special treatments and 2 that is not a part of our study plan. 3 Q In other words, this gets into the hydrologic 4 manipulation that we discussed awhile back? 5 A Right. And again, the question is where do you 6 do that. 7 Q Has EPA given any thought to possibly doing 8 that in a Stormwater Treatment Area or cell of a Stormwater 9 Treatment Area? 10 A Not to my knowledge. There's been no 11 discussions. 12 Q Do you think that it would be scientifically 13 valuable to do that if an area could be identified to perform 14 those particular studies? 15 A I think you could do some credible science as 16 long as the area in question is properly designed and there's 17 a complete study plan worked out in advance so that even 18 before you build it, you -- you know how you're going to study 19 it and there's none of this rush to judgment and trying to do 20 something quick and dirty. I think this is a comp -- very 21 complicated problem we're trying to address, and if it's 22 approached carefully, I think you could do something 23 meaningful. 24 Q I think I asked you earlier whether EPA had any 25 plans to design such a study. Let me come back to that 29 1 thought just a moment. My recollection is you said they do 2 not at present. 3 A Uh-huh (affirmative). 4 Q Are you in contact with state agencies that are 5 also involved with the mercury contamination problem in the 6 Everglades? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Do you know whether any of them are proposing 9 to do any such studies as the ones referred to during the 10 second and third two-year periods on this page? 11 A The only agency that might be considering 12 similar studies would be the South Florida Water Management 13 District. At least to my knowledge that's the only agency. 14 Q What is information known to you that suggests 15 they might be doing so? 16 A Well, there's -- there are in-house efforts to 17 develop a mercury study plan for the ENR project. 18 Q Have you been consulted in regard to those? 19 A Yes. 20 Q By whom were you consulted? 21 A Larry Fink. 22 Q What in particular did Mr. Fink indicate to you 23 the South Florida Water Management District might be 24 interested in doing? 25 A Well, he -- he has not specifically finished 30 1 his study plan, but his charge, I think, was to write a study 2 plan for the ENR for mercury, and he was simply going to push 3 that up through the management structure. 4 Q Has he provided you any draft material related 5 to such a study plan? 6 A Very incomplete draft material. The study plan 7 has never been completed at this point in time. 8 Q Do you know why it hasn't been completed at 9 this point in time? 10 A No, I don't. 11 Q Is that reflected among the documents from your 12 files that you brought here today? 13 A Yes. In one file appears the incomplete study 14 plan. 15 Q Would you be able to identify that for me 16 please? 17 A Uh-huh (affirmative). 18 MR. SAMS: Let's go off the record a second. 19 (Whereupon, a discussion ensued off record.) 20 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 21 Q Dr. Stober, I'd like to show you another set 22 that actually consists of four documents which I will ask the 23 court reporter to mark as Exhibit Number 3. That'll be a 24 composite exhibit. 25 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 31 1 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 3 for identification.) 2 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 3 Q And I would ask you if you recognize those 4 documents? 5 A I recognize three out of the four. 6 Q Okay, which of those, sir? 7 A The one by Ron Jones. 8 Q That's the first document? 9 A The first one. The second one I don't believe 10 I've ever seen. I've seen the third one and the fourth one. 11 Q Dr. Stober, was Ron Jones' document, the first 12 one, one that he submitted to EPA? 13 A Yes. He gave it to me. I don't know whether I 14 was the initial recipient of this document, but in beginning 15 to discuss mercury with him, this is one of the documents that 16 I was furnished. 17 Q If I could, I'd like to refer you to the first 18 paragraph of the document. This project should be considered 19 along with the project proposed by Dr. Tamar Barkay of the 20 USEPA ERL Gulf Breeze. Her project on the rates of mercury 21 transformations along with the research contained in this 22 proposal should provide answers to many of the questions 23 dealing with the sources and mechanisms of mercury 24 contamination in the Florida Everglades. With reference to 25 that paragraph, do you recognize the third and fourth 32 1 documents as being related in the manner that Dr. Jones 2 described in that paragraph to his work? 3 A I think the third and fourth documents probably 4 are the result of what he's referring to here regarding Tamar 5 Barkay's research. 6 Q Okay, sir. If I could, before leaving this 7 document, I'd like to refer you to a couple of things in it. 8 Particularly, I'd like to refer you to the second page. 9 Unfortunately, I don't think they're numbered. If I may point 10 down here to a sentence that begins with the word flooding, I 11 wonder -- can you tell me whether you agree with his assertion 12 that flooding of soils in the Everglades system also cannot be 13 the cause of mercury contamination since the net effect of the 14 last century has been to drain these soils for agricultural 15 production? 16 A And the question is whether I agree with it or 17 not? 18 Q Yes sir. 19 MR. LIPSHULTZ: You can read the para -- the 20 context if that's going to be helpful to you. 21 MR. SAMS: Yes, you certainly can. 22 MR. MANCUSI-UNGARO: Go off the record a second. 23 (Whereupon, a discussion ensued off the record.) 24 A I think I generally agree with the statement in 25 the context he made it. 33 1 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 2 Q Did you read following that his statement that 3 soils of the Everglades are unusual in their characteristics; 4 first, they are composed of neutral peat and are not highly 5 reduced anaerobic even though they are flooded for most of the 6 year? 7 A Yes. 8 Q Do you also agree with that statement? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Do you have an understanding of why the 11 Everglades soils are not highly reduced even though flooded 12 for most of the year? 13 A Well, I think the understanding at this point 14 in time is rudimentary at best, but the fact that the more or 15 less undisturbed wetland soils in the Everglades are circum- 16 neutral and essentially composed of sweet peat, which is not 17 anaerobic in its nature, points out the fact that the 18 Everglades wetlands are a unique system. 19 Q What does circum-neutral mean? 20 A The pH is around seven. 21 Q What characteristics define what you referred 22 to as sweet peat? 23 A You don't notice a proliferation of H2S when 24 their soils are disturbed indicating that, you know, the 25 environment in the soils are -- is not a reducing environment. 34 1 Q If I can refer you to the next page near the 2 top, did Dr. Jones discuss with you the hypothesis that he 3 proposed there? 4 A In that first little paragraph? 5 Q Yes sir. 6 A Yeah, we've discussed that. 7 Q Is that in fact a hypothesis that's being 8 examined in the EMAP or R-EMAP study? 9 A Yes. That will be examined as a specific part 10 of our transect studies. 11 Q Which transects are you referring to when you 12 say that this will be studied as part of the transect studies? 13 A Well, they're basically four transects in our 14 study plan. One of them crosses the Loxahatchee Water 15 Conservation Area 1 from general east to west through the 16 center. One transects the Cattail area and Water Conservation 17 Area 2 where there have been nutrient gradients previously 18 identified. The third transect is the lower end of Water 19 Conservation Area 3 starting at the Tamiami Trail and going 20 directly north for a few kilometers into Water Conservation 21 Area 3. And then the fourth one is the other end of that line 22 which would go south into the north part of Everglades 23 National Park. 24 Q To date, has any data been gathered on those 25 transects? 35 1 A None yet at all. 2 Q When is that effort expected to commence? 3 A First of April. 4 Q When are those data proposed to be analyzed? 5 A Well, as soon as the samples are collected, 6 they'll be taken to analytical labs; and the analysis probably 7 would not be forthcoming from the labs for at least three 8 months. 9 Q Is that the normal length of time that the same 10 number of samples would ordinarily require? 11 A Yes. In fact, it may take longer. In this 12 instance, more soil analyses will be required and they take 13 longer to analyze. 14 Q Is it expected that one of the transects will 15 be analyzed first? 16 A At the present time, there are no priorities on 17 any particular one being first. 18 Q In general, how will the data from those 19 transects be used to either confirm or dispute this 20 hypothesis? 21 A Well, the transects have already been sampled 22 previously for nutrients in -- as parts of other studies. 23 We're simply going to go back and repeat the nutrient sampling 24 and then add total and methylmercury analysis in water, soil 25 and fish, you know, wherever they occur and -- and simply look 36 1 for relationships to the nutrient curve. 2 Q Did you discuss the additional corollaries 3 listed by Dr. Jones beneath the hypothesis? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Is any effort currently underway to address the 6 first of those? 7 A No. 8 Q Is any effort planned for doing so? 9 A Not at this time. 10 Q Beyond this paper, has any been proposed? 11 A None to my knowledge. 12 Q If I could turn your attention then to the 13 second corollary. Do you know whether that corollary 14 concerning lack of proper maintenance is under study? 15 A Well, I don't know anything about maintenance 16 of canals, but our R-EMAP study is designed to sample the 17 canals in a probablistic sampling strategy so water, sediment 18 and fish are the three media that are sampled at each station 19 along with the conventional -- wide array of conventional 20 water quality measurements. Whether it has to do with 21 maintenance is immaterial. We're simply trying to understand 22 the distribution and extent of mercury in canals. 23 Q If I could turn you to the third paper. Can 24 you summarize for me in short-hand form, if that's possible, 25 your understanding about what Dr. Barkay's findings showed? 37 1 A The way I understand her studies, she had some 2 Everglades soils, samples that were collected, and they were 3 in -- taken from different sites that had differed 4 concentrations of phosphate, and she did some 5 methylation/demethylation experiments on them. And as far as 6 I understand the results, they indicated that slight nutrient 7 enrichment promoted methylation to occur, and then as nutrient 8 levels increased, demethylation was a predominant process that 9 was occurring. So that there is a relationship to nutrient 10 amount, but it can either, depending on the concentration, be 11 stimulating methylation or demethylation. 12 Q What is your understanding of the two levels of 13 eutrophication or nutrient contributions, if you will, that 14 you described, I guess, as small versus eutrophication? 15 A What is my understanding of that? 16 Q Yes. What would -- what did you mean in terms 17 of when you referred to small nutrient additions or whatever 18 phrase you used? 19 A Well, the reason why I phrased it the way I did 20 is because there are very limited amount of data here, very 21 few number of experiments, and to parameterize these results 22 by specific concentrations of nutrients is premature in my 23 estimation. 24 Q If I could, Dr. Stober, I'd like to refer you 25 to the fourth and final document in this composite exhibit. 38 1 Am I correct in surmising from the data at the top of the 2 first page that it was transmitted to you in this form by Dr. 3 Barkay? 4 A Yes, I think it was. 5 Q Is this report also referring to the results of 6 the same study that we just looked at as Document Number 3 in 7 this composite exhibit? 8 A To the best of my knowledge it is. 9 Q And does that include the summary table at the 10 end of the third -- 11 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I think that we're mixed up on 12 documents. Are you talking about the fourth -- Jerry 13 was looking at the -- Jerry was still looking at the 14 attachments to the letter. 15 A Well, this is what I call the fourth. 16 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Yeah, you're looking at -- it's 17 stapled differently on Jerry's copy. 18 MR. SAMS: Okay, I apologize. 19 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 20 Q You were looking at the document entitled 21 methylation and demethylation processes in soil sediments -- 22 A Oh, I see, it's all stapled together. 23 Q -- from the Florida Everglades? 24 A Well, see, I got this in two installments. 25 This document here you've got stapled as one. 39 1 Q I see. 2 A So I thought -- they came to me at different 3 times. 4 Q All right, sir. Is it your understanding that 5 then the one that you've corrected me and called Document 4 6 relates to Document 3? 7 A That's correct. 8 Q I was going on to ask essentially the same 9 question about what we'll now describe as Document 5 in this 10 composite exhibit. 11 MR. LIPSHULTZ: And just for purposes of 12 clarity, that's the one that has a fax transmittal memo 13 notation at the top. 14 MR. SAMS: Appears to, yes. 15 A And the question is whether it's still the same 16 study? 17 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 18 Q Yes sir. 19 A I think it's part of the same study. It's 20 probably the earliest -- well, I don't see a date on there, 21 2-27 -- no, that's not. I can't tell. I don't know whether 22 it's part of the same study or not, but I -- I suspect it's an 23 early version of some of the preliminary work that she did. 24 Q Do you know whether Dr. Barkay has done any 25 other work on this subject in regard to the Everglades? 40 1 MR. LIPSHULTZ: What subject? 2 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 3 Q The subject being demethylation and methylation 4 of mercury? 5 A To my knowledge, she hasn't done any other work 6 in relation to the Everglades, but she is a noted mercury 7 expert primarily from her work at Oak Ridge. 8 Q Although preliminary, do you regard these 9 results as scientifically interesting? 10 A Yes, I do. 11 Q Why is that? 12 A Well, it's some of the early work that points 13 the direction that needs to be researched to understand the 14 demethylation/methylation process. 15 Q Does it suggest, in fact, that demethylation 16 could outweigh methylation in the circumstances studied? 17 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Object to the form of the 18 question. 19 A No, I don't think it suggests that at all. 20 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 21 Q If you look at the final page of the last 22 document, now I'm calling it the fifth document, it appears to 23 show for waters being eutrophied a methylation rate of 4.5, a 24 demethylation rate of 5.4. I assume the numbers following 25 each of those may be the standard deviation or some such 41 1 thing, but I'm not sure; do you see that? 2 A Yes. 3 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Are you asking whether he agrees 4 with that characterization or not? 5 MR. SAMS: No, not yet. 6 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 7 Q But now I will. Do you agree with that 8 characterization of these numbers? 9 A No. I wouldn't particularly put too much 10 weight one way or the other. I think they point out that 11 there's an interesting relationship here, but there is 12 obviously too few data to draw any solid conclusions. 13 Q I noticed under -- or on the row called 14 eutrophied, it shows a methylation rate of 2.7 and a 15 demethylation rate of 7.8. Does that not indicate, at least 16 based on these preliminary studies, a greater rate of 17 demethylation -- 18 A Well, it does -- 19 Q -- than methylation? 20 A It does indicate that, but it's still too small 21 a study and a small a database to draw any lasting 22 conclusions. I think it's merely an indication of things that 23 need to be further researched. 24 Q Is that why you would reject my suggestion that 25 it shows under these circumstances demethylation may dominate 42 1 over methylation? 2 A Well, yes, I think it's premature to suggest 3 this reaction going one way or the other on the basis of one 4 experiment. 5 Q To your knowledge, has anyone proposed to go 6 forward with further experimentation based -- examining these 7 same subjects? 8 A I believe Tamar has proposals, and to my 9 knowledge at the present time, they're largely unfunded at 10 this point. 11 Q When were those additional proposals made? 12 A Well, I think within the last year she may have 13 put one together, but then I haven't received it directly so 14 -- I've just heard through other folks that she was developing 15 a proposal, and whether or not it's complete or ready to go 16 out to anywhere -- to a funding source I don't know. 17 Q Do you know of anyone else doing work to follow 18 up on this particular work? 19 A The only other ORD laboratory that has 20 expressed some interest in this is the Athens ORD Lab; but 21 there again it's been general discussions, nothing specific, 22 only indicating to me that they were interested in process 23 studies and I have not seen the proposals. 24 Q Do you regard this work as having lower 25 priority than the other work which is now scheduled under the 43 1 EMAP transect studies? 2 A Not necessarily. The EMAP studies are going 3 forward because we have been ident -- have been able to 4 identify source -- a source of funding from EMAP. The process 5 studies are proceeding at a slower rate because we have to 6 find different sources of funding for those. And as a result, 7 it looks like we have prioritized against process studies but 8 that, in fact, is not true. It's simply the funding sources 9 that are available. 10 Q Is there any other reason why that work, the 11 continuation of the Barkay inquiry, is not proceeding? 12 A That's the primary one that I know about, lack 13 of funding. 14 Q Are there secondary ones? 15 A No, I don't think there are. 16 Q With whom have you discussed these results of 17 the Barkay study? 18 A Mainly in the office. 19 Q With whom? 20 A Oh, Dale Hicks, Dan Scheidt and Ron -- Ron 21 Jones. 22 Q What was your nature -- the nature of your 23 discussion with Ron Jones concerning these results? 24 A Basically, what we've -- we've already 25 identified on the record that they're interesting studies and 44 1 they're a small part of what's needed to be done in order to 2 be able to draw some solid conclusions, and -- and additional 3 work has to be initiated to follow them up. 4 Q Did Dr. Jones agree that these were interesting 5 studies? 6 A Yeah, I believe he did. 7 Q Can you recall about when you would have had 8 those conversations or that conversation? 9 A Probably about a year ago. 10 Q Can you recall any other observations Dr. Jones 11 made about this work? 12 A Not -- not regarding the science, no. 13 Q What else did he comment about concerning this 14 report? 15 A Well, I think there were some comments about 16 the small amount of data produced for the dollar. 17 Q Did he make any other observations? 18 A No, I think that was about it. 19 Q Were you meeting face-to-face with Dr. Jones 20 when you discussed these results? 21 A Probably over the phone. 22 Q Did you and Dr. Jones discuss what priorities 23 should be given to following up this work? 24 A Well, no, I don't think we have discussed the 25 priority. The priority has mainly been set by the -- the 45 1 funding source, and we wanted to apply EMAP to the system 2 because it's particularly appropriate to determine extent and 3 magnitude. And that doesn't presuppose that process studies 4 are any less important; it's just that we're going to have to 5 fund those with additional dollars from somewhere else. 6 Q Do you believe it's important to follow up this 7 type of work eventually? 8 A Absolutely. 9 Q Why is that? 10 A Because we can establish the database that 11 we're currently on course under R-EMAP, but it will eventually 12 come to the process studies to gain the real understanding in 13 the system. 14 Q Are you familiar with the general scientific 15 literature concerning transformation of mercury in the 16 environment to a considerable extent in connection with your 17 work? 18 A I guess I'd answer that that I have a general 19 understanding in trans -- mercury transformations in the 20 environment. Anyone that's dealt with mercury would probably 21 not be honest if they said they understood everything about 22 mercury. 23 Q Focusing on the Everglades in particular, is it 24 critical to understand what processes drive methylation and 25 demethylation of mercury in regard to addressing the mercury 46 1 contamination problem? 2 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I'm going to object to the form. 3 It's not clear what you mean by critical. 4 A Can you restate it? 5 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 6 Q I'm using the word in the sense of essential, 7 very important, necessary to understand. 8 A The processes? 9 Q Yes sir. 10 A Yeah, I think it is. It's -- any study that 11 does not understand or study the processes of mercury cycling 12 in the Everglades is going to be deficient. 13 Q Ultimately, will it be important to determine 14 what level of eutrophication tends to promote demethylation 15 rather than methylation of mercury in the Everglades? 16 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Object to form. 17 A Can you restate it? 18 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 19 Q Ultimately, in order to address the problem of 20 mercury contamination in the Everglades, will it be important 21 to understand the degree of eutrophication that promotes 22 demethylation versus methylation? 23 A Well, ideally, yes, it would -- will be 24 necessary to understand the relationships between how the 25 process is stimulated by various forms of nutrients. And I 47 1 think the Barkay studies are -- are a very early indication 2 that -- that we have a lot of research to do in that area in 3 order to be able to say that we fully understand it and can 4 make decisions based on that. 5 MR. SAMS: Why don't we go off the record for a 6 second. 7 (Whereupon, a discussion ensued off the record.) 8 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 9 Q Dr. Stober, are you familiar with an 10 intentional plan to study mercury in the Everglades for the 11 Miccosukee tribe of Indians of Florida? 12 A Yes. The region has been asked to assist the 13 Indians in the study. 14 Q Let me show you a document that I'll ask the 15 court reporter to mark Exhibit Number 4. 16 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 17 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 4 for identification.) 18 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 19 Q Does that document, Dr. Stober, reflect that 20 planned study? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Were you a co-author of that plan? 23 A Yes. Dan Scheidt was taking the lead on this 24 one. 25 Q What's the general purpose of the study? 48 1 A Well, the general purpose was to see whether 2 drinking water or fish that the tribal members might consume 3 were contaminated with mercury. And then CDC was given a 4 small contract to actually do some assessments of the tribal 5 individuals on how much fish they eat and where they catch it 6 from, and then I think it also included some actual blood or 7 hair samples from the individuals in question. 8 Q Is CDC the Center for Disease Control? 9 A Right. 10 Q Is that study, meaning the one that's Exhibit 11 Number 4, underway? 12 A The -- yes, it's underway. 13 Q Have data been collected under it? 14 A Yes. There's the ten drinking-water wells and 15 CDC has conducted their initial study, and the fish have been 16 collected. 17 Q Do you have any data or results from that 18 study? 19 A No, I don't. 20 Q Do you know whether EPA has received any? 21 A There's been no data for fish as to this point 22 in time. 23 Q Are there other data such as the well data? 24 A Yes. I think there's -- the ten drinking-water 25 wells have been analyzed. 49 1 Q Do you have those data? 2 A No, I don't. 3 Q Do you know who would? 4 A I think Dan Sheidt has it. 5 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Yeah, we should -- let me 6 discuss one thing with you off the record for a second. 7 (Whereupon, a discussion ensued off the record.) 8 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 9 Q Could you give me the last question and the 10 response? 11 (Whereupon, the question and answer were 12 replayed.) 13 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 14 Q What other data does Dan Scheidt have that's an 15 output of this study, if you know? 16 A I think the only other data he might have is 17 the CDC report, and other than the well data, that probably is 18 the current state of that database. 19 Q When are the fish data proposed to be compiled, 20 if you know? 21 A I think they're just being sent for analysis 22 now. 23 Q Who's analyzing them? 24 A I don't know. 25 Q In general, would Mr. Scheidt know -- 50 1 A Yes, he -- 2 Q -- this level of detail? 3 A -- he knows the details. 4 Q Let me show you another document, Dr. Stober, 5 that I will ask the court reporter to mark as Exhibit Number 6 5, and ask if you recognize that document? 7 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 8 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 5 for identification.) 9 A I don't believe I've seen this document before. 10 I may have been copied, but I don't rec -- recall it. 11 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 12 Q Are you aware of any study ongoing in the 13 Everglades by the United States Geological Survey? 14 A Well, the only thing I recall regarding Larry 15 Gough is he talked to me on a couple of occasions about using 16 bromeliads in the Everglades to compare to a study of 17 bromeliads in Venezuela, and that's about the extent of my 18 knowledge. 19 Q Would that bromeliad comparison work, as you 20 understood it in your conversation with him, be related to the 21 cycling of mercury in the Everglades? 22 A The way I would look at it, it's another 23 possible way to study part of the mercury cycling problem and 24 primarily designed to measure atmospheric deposition. 25 Q But I take it you don't know whether this study 51 1 in fact is being done? 2 A No, I don't. 3 Q Next, Dr. Stober, I'll show you a document 4 which the court reporter will mark as Exhibit Number 6, and 5 ask you if you recognize that document? 6 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 7 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 6 for identification.) 8 A Yes, I do. 9 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 10 Q Were you a co-author of this document with Dr. 11 Hicks? 12 A Yes, I was. 13 Q Was this an early version of what's now become 14 the EMAP study? 15 A Yes, it was one of the first versions. 16 Q I'd like to refer you, Dr. Stober, to page 5, 17 if I may, and specifically to the first paragraph under the 18 caption, Study Area. Just about halfway down in the paragraph 19 there's a sentence that begins, the canals. Obviously, I'd 20 want you to read this in context, but it says, the canals 21 which lace this area impose both near-field and far-field 22 changes in the hydroperiod and will receive special 23 consideration. Referring to the extent you wish for context, 24 can you tell me what is meant by the observation concerning 25 the canals imposing both near-field and far-field changes in 52 1 the hydroperiod? What's that mean? 2 A Well, I probably wouldn't state it that way 3 again because the meaning is probably not as clear as it could 4 be, but I think what it was driving at was the canals could 5 probably create near-field spatial changes. As far as 6 far-field, I'm not aware of what I was referring to at that 7 point, but I wouldn't state it like this again. I think we've 8 progressed way beyond this. 9 Q Was this an attempt to reference hydrology as 10 an element of the mercury study? 11 A Well, it was obviously an attempt to get 12 hydroperiod involved as a part of the study, but this was a 13 very early document, probably one of the first cuts that we 14 made at this study plan, and our thinking became more refined 15 as we got into the details. I wouldn't -- I wouldn't make 16 this kind of statement at this point in time. I think there 17 -- there are statements to be made about different kind of 18 modeling exercises, but that's way beyond what this was 19 referring to at this point. 20 Q What is it that you have since learned that 21 would cause you now not to make this statement? 22 A Well, I think there's still a question about 23 how the canals might affect localized portions of the marsh 24 and how they're operated and how they transport water and 25 where they overflow. And I think that's probably the most 53 1 important part of what this was trying to get at, and it just 2 wasn't very well stated. 3 Q If I understood your follow-up explanation a 4 moment ago, you said that we now know much more and have a 5 more refined approach, so I wouldn't necessarily say this now. 6 What is it that we now know that would cause you to change 7 this statement? 8 A Well, we don't have any more data now than we 9 had probably at the time this was written, but I think we've 10 conceptualized it more completely and we would -- we would 11 still have some concern about how the canals act in the system 12 and may -- may be a source of methylation in how the water is 13 transported through and the various water quality changes as 14 that occurs, and that's how it ought to be expressed and not 15 in a -- in a kind of a statement that you see here. 16 Q If I could refer you over to page 9, under the 17 first paragraph below Long-Term Tasks, the last two sentences 18 of the first paragraph, if I may, what does it mean that 19 methylmercury is highly lipophilic? 20 A That means that mercury would be soluble in 21 fat, but, in fact, that's probably an incorrect statement. At 22 least in fish, it's bioaccumulated in the -- in the muscle 23 tissue; and for something to be lipophilic, it would have to 24 be bioaccumulated in the fat, and the muscle tissue is where 25 it's actually bioaccumulated. Now, the rest of that statement 54 1 acts as a neuro -- neurotoxin is one way that it acts. 2 Q I see the next sentence says, because of its 3 lipophilic nature, it can be taken up directly by fishes. 4 Would you recede from that -- 5 A No. 6 Q -- statement? 7 A No, -- well, it -- it -- the lipophilic nature 8 is not so important as the fact that it can be taken up by the 9 fishes both through the food chain as well as by absorption 10 over the gills, and the food chain seems to be probably the 11 primary pathway of bioaccumulation. 12 Q Do fish absorb mercury from water passing over 13 the gills? 14 A A certain amount. 15 Q What is its importance -- what is the relative 16 importance of that amount of ingestion, if I can use that word 17 loosely, versus through diet? How much of the mercury taken 18 up by a fish would come directly from the water passing over 19 the gills versus as part of its diet? 20 A Well, I can't give you a fixed percentage. I 21 think it would vary with the system that the fish is in. I 22 think most uptake by fish would be through the food chain. 23 Q If I could, I'd like to refer you to page 14, 24 under the topic, Microcosm Testing. After a description of 25 microcosm testing, the last two sentences say, these 55 1 microcosms are presently being utilized by Florida 2 International University where testing has begun. EPA GBERL 3 will focus on methylation/demethylation experiments using 4 radio-isotopes. Is that paragraph that ends with those two 5 sentences describing the Tamar Barkay-Jones work that we've 6 discussed earlier in connection with exhibit -- Composite 7 Exhibit Number 3? 8 A Yes. That -- that was our early understanding 9 and this was written, I think, back in '92. So it was one of 10 the first drafts, and that's the way we understood the 11 relationship was being worked out between Ron Jones and Tamar 12 Barkay in what each of them would do. 13 Q Is that how, in fact, that relationship did 14 operate to the best of your knowledge? 15 A Yes. It's, I think, still accurate. 16 Q Does reading that give rise to any recollection 17 on your part of any manner in which the work that was 18 reflected in Exhibit Number 3, that being the Barkay work in 19 particular, went forward beyond what we've already discussed? 20 A No. Really, I had very little knowledge and no 21 direct involvement in this, and what you see on this -- in 22 this paragraph is about the extent of my understanding. 23 Q At the time you wrote this paper, Dr. Stober, 24 was it your understanding that the effects of hydroperiod on 25 mercury methylation would be key to understanding how mercury 56 1 cycles in the Everglades? 2 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I'm going to object to the form. 3 It's not clear what you mean by key. 4 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 5 Q Worthy of special attention? 6 A I'm not sure where you see that that's written 7 in here. 8 Q Well, I'm really going back to page 5 because 9 -- under Study Area, the paragraph we already talked about, 10 and you said you wouldn't have written the question 11 referencing hydroperiod there the same today as you wrote it 12 then, and I'm just trying to get an understanding of the full 13 extent to which you believed hydroperiod deserved special 14 consideration at the time you wrote this paper. 15 A Well, I think hydroperiod has always been one 16 possible influence on the cycling of mercury in the system. 17 The problem with hydroperiod is that it's difficult to study 18 because you have to be able to control the hydroperiod. And 19 lacking that control, the best approach then is to monitor 20 over time and post-stratify the data to analyze for various 21 hydroperiod conditions. And -- and that was the realization 22 we came to after this thing was written, after this draft was 23 written, that that was the only practical approach that we 24 could take at the present time until and if there might be an 25 experimental area that would lend itself to this kind of 57 1 research. 2 Q At the time you wrote this, was it your 3 understanding or your scientific belief that the effects of 4 hydroperiod on the mercury contamination problem deserved 5 special consideration? 6 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Let me just say one thing for 7 purposes of clarity. I don't know that there's been 8 any testimony that Dr. Stober wrote this particular 9 passage. He may well have, I just don't -- it seems to 10 be supposition on your -- 11 MR. SAMS: He said he co-authored the paper, if 12 he has no recollection of this -- 13 MR. LIPSHULTZ: I just don't know. I just 14 realized that we've been talking about it and I'm not 15 sure that he's ever been asked that question. 16 A Restate your question again that you're asking 17 now. 18 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 19 Q The question I'm really asking is whether at 20 the time you wrote this paper, you believed that the effects 21 of hydroperiod on mercury contamination in the Everglades was 22 worthy of special consideration. 23 A Well, I guess what -- what bothers me of the 24 question is worthy of special consideration. I think it's one 25 of the factors in the Everglades that definitely has to be 58 1 considered, and as I've already pointed out, it's hard to 2 envision how to study this under artificial -- under 3 controlled conditions. And as a result, we see the best 4 approach is to monitor over a relatively long time span and 5 then take a retrospective look at the data to see whether 6 there are, in fact, any changes. And it's also tied up with 7 the problematic need to measure the evasion of mercury off of 8 wet and dry soil, and that is a very difficult measurement to 9 make at the present time because of the limitations that 10 technology imposes. So we see that that has to be addressed, 11 but how to address it is anything but clearly established at 12 this point. 13 Q I believe you said that evasion of mercury off 14 of wet and dry soils is technically difficult, or words to 15 that effect. What did you mean by that expression? 16 A I mean the measurement of off-gassing of Hg0 17 from soil may be different under wet as opposed to dry 18 conditions. And in order to close the cycling model, there 19 have -- there has to be some measurement of the evasion terms, 20 and the only place that I know in the literature that that's 21 ever been done is on seep lakes in northern climates. So it's 22 a whole new measurement that has to be done on a wetland in 23 the first instance and then a subtropical environment in the 24 second, pose some different challenges. 25 Q I believe you said something to the effect of 59 1 close the cycle. Were you referring there to completion of 2 the mass balance equation? 3 A That would be part of it, yes. 4 Q What else did you mean by closing the cycle, if 5 I'm correctly repeating it? 6 A Well, I'm just thinking about the conceptual 7 model that's in the R-EMAP study plan. Evasion is clearly 8 identified, and there is one measurement that has to be made 9 on various types of soils and wetlands, and that's a study 10 that we initially thought we might be able to do with -- by 11 using a long-path UV, which is a new technology, but the level 12 of detection of that technology is not adequate yet to measure 13 the low levels of evasion that we would have to measure. So 14 the methodology is still in question, how to do it. 15 Q Have you had any conversations with Dr. Lean, 16 spelled L-E-A-N, concerning this issue? 17 A No, I haven't. 18 Q Are you aware of his work with ultraviolet 19 technology for mercury measurements? 20 A No, I'm not. 21 Q I believe you also said, in helping me to 22 understand that, that there are basic differences between 23 northern seepage lakes and subtropical systems like the 24 Everglades; is that a correct understanding of one of the 25 points you made? 60 1 A Yes. 2 Q What are the key differences that would 3 significantly affect the evasion question? 4 A Well, a couple of key differences would be 5 temperature is much higher in the Everglades, photo -- well, 6 changes that are related to photo-degradation or intense 7 sunlight, those kinds of things would be obvious places to 8 start. 9 Q Would water depth be one of the factors? 10 A It could be. 11 Q Let me show you another document which I'll ask 12 the court reporter to mark as Exhibit Number 7. 13 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 14 Plaintiff's Exhibit Number 7 for identification.) 15 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 16 Q Do you recognize that document? 17 A Yes. 18 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Do you have an extra copy? 19 MR. SAMS: No, I don't, but he has numerous 20 copies in his file I noticed. 21 MR. MANCUSI-UNGARO: Tell me which one that is. 22 A It's a scope of work with the three drafts 23 across the bottom and top. 24 MR. LIPSHULTZ: It says December 8th, '92. 25 MR. SAMS: Do you want -- you might be able to 61 1 find it quicker for them. Do you want to step down 2 there and do that? 3 MR. LIPSHULTZ: That's all right, why don't you 4 just go ahead and ask him about it. 5 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 6 Q Dr. Stober, what was your role in regard to 7 this document? 8 A Well, I was the primary author putting this 9 together. 10 Q I'm sorry, did you say a primary or the primary 11 author? 12 A The primary author. 13 MR. SAMS: Did you find it? 14 MR. MANCUSI-UNGARO: Yeah. 15 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 16 Q Dr. Stober, was this a later effort than your 17 mercury contamination in the Everglades ecosystem draft 18 leading ultimately to the EMAP study? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Did this involve the State of Florida DEP, then 21 called the Department of Environmental Regulation, and the 22 South Florida Water Management District? 23 A Yes. 24 Q Did the individuals named on the first page 25 contribute to this document? 62 1 A Yes. They were consulted and reviewed it with 2 comments. 3 Q Were those comments submitted to you in 4 writing? 5 A I think Larry Fink submitted some comments. 6 I'm not sure that -- Tom Atkeson probably gave them to me over 7 the phone. 8 Q Would you have kept phone notes of your 9 conversation with Dr. Atkeson? 10 A I keep phone notes, but I don't know if I could 11 find any notes on this. It goes back a couple of years, and 12 that would be a problem to locate. 13 Q I'd like to refer you first to page 3, Dr. 14 Stober, and in particular to the paragraph that's at the 15 middle of the page. If you follow down the right-hand margin, 16 you find the word since. The sentence reads, since most of 17 the fish sampled thus far by the Florida Game and Freshwater 18 Fish Commission have been collected under drought conditions 19 from the canals, sampling will need to continue during normal 20 hydroperiods to further define the extent of contamination. 21 What was the point being made there -- let me ask the question 22 this way. How is it that the extent of contamination would be 23 further defined by sampling during non-drought conditions? 24 A Well, what we were looking at with the database 25 developed under drought conditions is most of the fish in the 63 1 system being forced to the canals because that's the only 2 where -- only place that there was any open water. As the 3 other extreme, under wet conditions the marsh is watered and 4 some of these fish would migrate out into the marsh itself, 5 and there would be a more wide -- wide dispersal of these fish 6 stocks into the marsh as well as some would remain in the 7 canals because of their size, but that's what we're referring 8 to, that under wet conditions your extent and magnitude may 9 increase. 10 Q Your extent and magnitude of what might 11 increase? 12 A Well, the -- the amount of fish that show 13 contamination may extend over a larger area than just focused 14 in the canals. 15 Q Is it also true that you would be more likely 16 to capture in your data the effect of mercury from interior 17 marsh areas on the fish if the sampling were done at the 18 higher water periods? 19 A Well, I don't agree with your premise, but the 20 general idea is that if you sample fish across the marsh, you 21 may find lower or higher concentrations however -- however it 22 may turn out because the canals may be sort of the worst case, 23 and if the fish is eating and living in the marsh, the 24 contamination level may be lower, not higher. So I think 25 that's part of the reason for the study is to determine what 64 1 the broader extent and magnitude in the marsh itself is and 2 that's why the EMAP approach is a good one because it will 3 give you this broad-scale approach to the whole ecosystem. 4 And then you will be able to see whether, in fact, you see the 5 same thing that the state data has already indicated for 6 canals occur in the marsh or not occur in the marsh. 7 Q Do we have any reason to believe that the fish 8 in the marshes would not have higher mercury concentrations in 9 their tissue? 10 A Do we have reason to believe or not to believe? 11 Q Do we have any reason to believe that they 12 would not have higher concentration of mercury in their tissue 13 if they live in the interior of the marsh? 14 A The way I understand your question is I would 15 -- I think we do have reason to believe that the fish could be 16 less contaminated in the marsh than they are in the canals. 17 The question that would have to be addressed is have they 18 migrated from the canals to the marsh or have they -- has 19 there been a sufficient hydroperiod for a long enough period 20 of time that the fish that you're sampling in the marsh are 21 likely to have grown up in the marsh, therefore, not being 22 contaminated earlier on in the canals; and I think the 23 monitoring approach over time will tell you that. 24 Q What kind of fish does one use to help 25 determine that? 65 1 A Well, there's a variety of species that you 2 could use. We have selected the Gambusia because it's more or 3 less ubiquitous and has a short life span and has proven 4 itself to be a reasonable indicator of mercury contamination 5 or mercury uptake, let's say, as opposed to large-mouthed bass 6 and war-mouthed bass and other species that might also occur 7 across the entirety of the marsh and most of the marsh where 8 there's sufficient water levels. Those are -- come under the 9 purview of the State Game and Freshwater Fish Commission and 10 they take considerably more effort to sample, so we have 11 selected the Gambusia based on its ubiquitous distribution and 12 the fact that we can sample it quickly with very little gear. 13 Q What is the reason that we have to believe that 14 the fish, I'll say Gambusia, in the interior of the marsh will 15 not be as contaminated with mercury as Gambusia in the canals? 16 A Well, the marsh may be an environment that's 17 less conducive to the methylation process than the canals are. 18 And the reason for the study -- to study both the canals and 19 the marshes is to answer that question, whether or not the 20 marshes are as conducive to methylation or not as the canals 21 might be. Essentially, you're looking at two different 22 environments and you can't leave one or the other out. 23 Q Would there necessarily be a direct correlation 24 between methylation rates and the concentration of mercury in 25 fish tissue? 66 1 A A direct correlation? No, I don't think 2 there's necessarily a direct correlation. 3 Q Why is that? 4 A Well, I don't think I can give you an answer. 5 I think that's something that has to get a lot more research 6 attention than it has, and it's currently beyond the immediate 7 scope of the R-EMAP study. 8 Q Are you familiar with the concept of 9 biodilution? 10 A Yes, I've heard of it. 11 Q What is that concept in your understanding? 12 A Well, it basically says that if you have a 13 highly eutrophic system producing a lot of biomass, that the 14 amount of mercury available is distributed across many more 15 critters, organisms, at various trophic levels. And as a 16 result, by analyzing any one or subset, the concentration is 17 diluted out. That's -- that's my understanding of it. 18 Q Is that one of the reasons that there isn't 19 necessarily a direct correlation between rate of methylation 20 of mercury and concentration of mercury in fish tissue? 21 A Could -- 22 MR. LIPSHULTZ: Object to the form. Sorry. I 23 object to the form of the question. You can go ahead 24 and answer. 25 A Can you rephrase it? 67 1 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 2 Q Did you not understand that question, Doctor? 3 A Well, I think I'd like it if you'd rephrase it 4 again and let me think about it a little bit here. 5 Q Is biodilution one of the reasons that there 6 might not be a direct correlation between the rate of 7 methylation of mercury at a location and the concentration of 8 mercury in fish tissue at that location? 9 A It could be one of the reasons. 10 Q Are you aware of data showing concentrations of 11 mercury in fish tissue from interior marsh areas of the 12 Everglades? 13 A I have heard a discussion at a meeting about 14 some samples that the State Game and Fish people took about a 15 year ago that came from the interior marsh. 16 Q What is your understanding of those data? 17 A Well, they had mercury in them, but I -- I 18 don't recall at this point whether the levels were higher or 19 lower than the mar -- than the canals. 20 Q Have you been made aware of recent data 21 developed by Dr. Carl Watras for the South Florida Water 22 Management District? 23 A No, I haven't seen his data. 24 Q Are you aware that he recently submitted data 25 to them? 68 1 A The only thing I was aware of that he took some 2 samples, but I wasn't aware that he'd submitted any data. 3 Q What is your understanding that he sampled? 4 A Well, my understanding is that he sampled 5 primarily places of inflow and outflow throughout the ENR 6 project. Beyond that, I don't know where -- where he sampled. 7 Q Is it your understanding that he was sampling 8 mercury concentrations in fish tissue? 9 A No, my understanding was it was water samples. 10 Q I'd like to turn your attention if I may now to 11 page 13 of Exhibit 7. Down near the bottom -- I'll just 12 point, if I may, Dr. Stober -- there's a sentence that begins 13 wetlands in general, do you see that, sir? 14 A Uh-huh (affirmative). 15 Q Wetlands in general are also known as likely 16 sites of mercury methylation, but in the Everglades the 17 conditions under which this occurs are not clearly understood. 18 Is that a true statement today? 19 A Yes, I think it is. 20 Q If I could, I'd like to turn you to page 15 -- 21 I'd like to turn to page 15. In the second full paragraph 22 that appears on the page, there's about seven or eight lines 23 down a sentence that begins, recently, these soils have been 24 implicated as the source of the mercury that contaminate the 25 tissues of fishes caught in associated waters. Are the soils 69 1 being discussed there the Everglades peat soils generally? 2 A Yes, I think that's what it refers to. 3 Q What are the bases of the implication that's 4 referred to in that sentence? 5 A Well, I think it's just pointing out the -- the 6 fact that there's a considerable amount of mercury been 7 sequestered in the Everglades peat over the geologic time that 8 it developed, and it's sequestered out of the atmosphere. So 9 part of our R-EMAP study is to quantify this on a depth basis 10 across the entire system so that we can get a better estimate 11 of the total quantity of mercury that's naturally sequestered 12 in that peat soil. 13 Q Have any data other than canal sediments been 14 examined under the R-EMAP study for soils? 15 A No. 16 Q Will measurements of soils at various depths be 17 part of the R-EMAP study along the four transects that we 18 discussed earlier? 19 A Yes, it will. 20 Q When is that work intended to commence? 21 A First of April. 22 Q Is that the soils data which you said would 23 take some time to analyze and might lead to getting reports 24 and results three or more months later? 25 A Right. It will take a minimum of three months 70 1 to see that entire database come back. 2 Q I'd like to direct your attention now to the 3 first paragraph that's a complete paragraph on page 16. The 4 paragraph concludes with a sentence, the interactions of the 5 sulfur cycle and sulfur-reducing bacteria with the chemistry 6 of mercury present numerous questions requiring research in 7 understanding the processes affecting mercury contamination in 8 the Everglades. Is that, Dr. Stober, one of those items that 9 will be subject to review following the phase of the R-EMAP 10 study that's -- that we're now in, is that the kind of process 11 that's being discussed there or will the sampling along the 12 transects help to provide those answers? 13 A Well, the sampling along the transects will 14 provide some background information, and then you're correct 15 in assuming that process studies regarding the sulfur cycle 16 will be necessary; and that's something that's very much 17 anticipated, although there hasn't been any funding identified 18 to launch those kind of studies yet. 19 Q Why is understanding of the sulfur cycle 20 necessary? 21 A Well, it has very close interactions with the 22 methylation/demethylation process because the understanding 23 right now from some of the best experts in the country is that 24 it -- the methylation/demethylation process is primarily 25 mediated by sulfur-reducing bacteria and there aren't many 71 1 people that understand what sulfur-reducing bacteria do in 2 terms of mercury and that's a wide open area of research. 3 Q Is there some belief that the understanding if 4 any that exist elsewhere, that is, in other ecological 5 settings, may not be transferable to the Everglades in this 6 regard? 7 A Well, that's certainly a consideration that 8 always has to be made in trying to transfer northern data to 9 subtropical systems. 10 Q I'd like you to look at the next paragraph if 11 you would. Do you have any reason to recede from the 12 statements you make in that next paragraph beginning, flooding 13 of soils and vegetation? 14 A No, I don't think I do. 15 Q I'd like you to look at the last complete 16 paragraph which appears on this page. It says, surface flow 17 of water may be an important transport mechanism which moves 18 sediment, phosphorus, inorganic and organic mercury off the 19 Everglades Agricultural Area via canals to the downstream 20 Water Conservation Areas and the Everglades National Park. Is 21 that question of the transport mechanism being studied in the 22 R-EMAP study at this time? 23 A The way that R-EMAP study is currently defined, 24 the transport mechanisms would have to be added to it in order 25 to identify what would be done in order to elucidate these 72 1 issues. 2 Q Is there any proposal at this time to add 3 transport mechanisms? 4 A No, no written proposal. Some very preliminary 5 brief discussions within our staff at EPA and that's all. 6 Q Do you have in mind a time frame by which EPA 7 might try to decide whether to add transport mechanisms to the 8 R-EMAP study? 9 A No. There's presently no time frame. 10 Q Is there any other factor besides the 11 unavailability of funding that the transport mechanism is not 12 being studied? 13 A Well, just the availability of the key 14 personnel. We have to identify sufficiently in advance to 15 free those people up to work on these types of things and that 16 hasn't been done yet. 17 Q Is the same true for the work -- I should say 18 the work necessary to examine the questions in the next 19 paragraph? 20 A Oh, which questions are you referring to? 21 Q It refers to several unique features of organic 22 soils and then ultimately says, a significant supply of 23 mercury may have been transported downstream over the years. 24 Then it goes on to say, the second hypothesis to be tested 25 will be to estimate the loading by mass transport of mercury 73 1 and/or methylmercury from the Everglades Agricultural Area to 2 the downstream Water Conservation Areas and the Everglades 3 National Park. And I'm asking you if, in essence, what we've 4 just been discussing about transport is also as true for this 5 paragraph? 6 A For the -- I would say it's true for the 7 loading part of this, to actually get some mass transport 8 information. That is not currently the part -- a part of the 9 R-EMAP study plan. 10 Q Is anything else in this paragraph subject to 11 the current R-EMAP study plan? 12 A No. I think the -- the information coming out 13 of the R-EMAP study plan will help formulate the appropriate 14 mass transport studies that are needed. That's one reason why 15 they're -- they're not being pushed in advance of R-EMAP. 16 Q On page 18, the second paragraph, are you there 17 referencing the Barkay materials that we discussed in 18 connection with Composite Exhibit Number 3? 19 A Yes, and she's cited there, Barkay '92. 20 Q Do you have any reason to recede from the last 21 sentence there which says, leaving out parentheticals, the 22 methylation/demethylation ratios in soil sediment and the 23 influence of nutrients on these processes is an important area 24 of research to identify the causal mechanisms in the increased 25 bioavailability of mercury? 74 1 A I have no reason to recede from that, no. 2 Q If I could, I'd like to refer you to page 34 3 now, Dr. Stober. Under Item 7.4.1.1, Project Description, 4 down near the bottom of the page, is the work described in 5 that paragraph concerning runoff from Everglades Agricultural 6 Area sampling a body of work that, in essence, will come later 7 as we've been discussing? 8 A Part of this is -- the first part which refers 9 to sampling around the periphery of the EAA, not for mass 10 transport reasons but simply to get a time series of water 11 quality, total and methylmercury, is cooperatively being 12 collected by the District, and that's identified as a part of 13 the R-EMAP study plan. 14 Q Did I understand your answer correctly to say 15 that's not at this date being done to determine potential mass 16 transport? 17 A Well, no, it's simply a sampling exercise to 18 develop the time series. So the way this short project 19 description is written is more all inclusive of a number of 20 things that need to be done rather than what we're able to do 21 under R-EMAP. 22 Q I'd like to show you what I'll ask the reporter 23 to mark as Exhibit Number 8. 24 (Whereupon, the court reporter marked 25 Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 for identification.) 75 1 BY MR. SAMS: (Resuming) 2 Q Can you tell me, Dr. Stober, what this document 3 is? 4 A It hadn't been written yet. It's a paper that 5 myself, Jones and Scheidt are going to write on the R-EMAP 6 study and present to the International Conference on Mercury 7 as a Global Pollutant. 8 Q When is that conference? 9 A In July. 10 Q Is there any draft in existence of this paper? 11 A Not -- no, not really. There -- there are 12 versions of, you know, the things that we've been talking 13 about all day, some parts of which will be worked into this 14 paper. 15 Q Will this paper also be based on data which 16 you've made avail